<p>Getting MPH is getting a bit popular- one of my friends is applying for several programs because she knows that med schools like to see something like that and also it's a bit of a trial to see how much she actually likes medicine from a practical point of view.</p>
<p>Honestly, talk to more than ONE professor about their PhDs. Ask them about the worst and best parts about graduate school. As much they really, really hate to admit it, for most part, they did love graduate school. (Probably because their lives were secure...and funded, and now they're on their own!). I've talked with a number of people with PhDs- both at my university, other universities, and in the field that I want to work in to figure out if it would be worth going for the PhD. At the same time, I had to test myself to find out how much I love doing research so I spent hours with my sources and my laptop :) Did I feel good at the end or just spent? I felt terrific!</p>
<p>Teaching is NOT the only option for a PhD as others have suggested. The only way that you can make your PhD work for you is if you LOVE research and then you won't have one bit of regret about going to graduate school. Those who felt that their PhDs didn't do them good probably didn't have a good experience in graduate school. You're going to go out there without regret and just take whatever is offered to you. (Unfortunately, having that PhD can and will create that "ivory tower" or an egoistic mentality...)</p>
<p>Good luck... you're actually a sophomore so you have plenty of time!</p>
<p>Lots of good advice here. Terwtt and others are right, PhD is not equal to poor: it depends very much on where you go and what type of degree. I can tell ya, most PhDs I know in several professional fields, including my own, earn 200-300k (why do you think tuition has skyrocketed :) ?). Also any position at a research oriented school (likely all the schools you are familiar with, other than LACs) are primarily research, not teaching jobs. </p>
<p>I also agree biomed. ethics and healthy policy are the right areas that may capture your interests. Hot field, increasing number of posts. You won't be driving a taxi.</p>
<p>If you are interested in getting a PhD to do research, you first and foremost have to choose the area based on what you are really passionate about. Its the only thing that will keep you going. It sounds like you may have found that area.</p>
<p>I too had gotten some majorly lame advice about why I shouldn't get a PhD from a few professors. In hindsight, I didn't know enough at the time to realize they were not a good source. Talk to LOTS of professors in lots of areas (esp biomed and policy) to get a better sense of it. You might even work backwards. Find a recent paper you consider really interesting, look up the author and email them. Tell them you loved their work and want to know more about what they do for a living and if you could do it too. I think you'll find most will help you.</p>
<p>Adad, I think that I would be pretty good at listening to a client. While I don't think that a PhD in clinical psych would be the best option because I wouldn't want to do that alone, I think that I could do that aspect of the job, and really enjoy the medicine behind medications and the body also.</p>
<p>Honestly, if the client simply doesn't want to get better, I don't think that it matters what I feel about the situation anyway. All I could do is listen and try to do my job, and I can't see myself feeling like I failed if I tried with an uncooperative client. I would feel bad about the situation, but I don't think that I'd necessarily see that as my failure alone.</p>
<p>MidwestMom2Kids_, thanks for all that info! I will certainly look into all of those options.</p>
<p>Thanks to Ticklemepink and exploringmom also! I guess I will need to hit up a bunch of my professors and different people in the fields!</p>
<p>It would not be your failure. The way I would see it, you offered good things, but the client could not or chose not to receive all of them at that time. </p>
<p>However, achievement-oriented people might find it hard to accept that clients who seemingly should or could get better, don't. </p>
<p>I know that you could do it. But it would trouble me if people, not saying that this applies to you, were to view listening as an ancillary, annoying part of the job that they get past as best and as fast as possible in order to get to do the fun, analytical medication work. </p>
<p>I know that the world is changing, has changed. But in taking calls on a crisis hotline, I am often hearing "I see a psychiatrist to get my meds, but I can't talk to him/her." To me, that is a shame.</p>
<p>I think mathmom pointed out an important issue: undergrad research. Not only it might play a major role in the med school / PhD program admission; it also may allow you to explore your interests in a practical setting; and you could meet more people to talk to about your perspectives.</p>
<p>Here's where you can look for research opportunities suitable for you. </p>
<p>ADad, I am a bit of a "bleeding heart" type person, so I doubt that I would see the listening part as tedious. Within my group of friends, I am often the go-to person. I think that I am both sensitive and analytical, as well as aware that the client is, above all, a person in need. While I can definitely agree that I might get frustrated if a client seems like they "should" get better, because I've been frustrated with friends who go in circles, I don't think that that frustration would overwhelm my desire to help. Also, I think and hope that I'd have the sense to keep that frustration private, especially since clients AREN'T my friends and that wouldn't be my place.</p>
<p>It is incredibly sad that so many people can't talk to their psychiatrists. I don't think that that is right. I think it is the responsibility of the doctor to realize that talking is part of that speciality. I'm not sure that doctors who lack social skills and empathy should be dealing with patients at all. Psychiatry is not the field for a Gregory House type, for sure.</p>
<p>Marmat103, WOW! Thank you so much! That is amazing! And thanks for letting me know that women count in that category!</p>
<p>The psychiatrist-not-talking-thing is largely a product of the short term, cost effectiveness of the "chemical imbalance" school of mental health. There are many factors that contibute to this trend, and the psychiatrists role in this is really pretty small. Talking is a "procedure" that takes time and you just can't make more of that, so managing health care dollars and mental health benefits means factoring that into the equation. I t seems to suite everybody, at least in the short term ( especially if mental health benefits and medication benefits come from different pots) to believe that manging "chemicals" is the way to manage mental health.</p>
<p>getting off soapbox and going back to work....</p>